be simple and easy and certain of calculation. The legislative mind must not be confused by technical side issues.

A license fee or tax measured by premium receipts received in the State meets this desired requirement and bases the contributions of life insurance companies to governmental support on the amount of business transacted with policy holders in the several taxing jurisdictions.

Concerning the rate, your Committee is of the opinion that the imposition of a tax of 1 per centum of domestic premium receipts upon all companies engaged in the business of life insurance would result in substantial and sufficient revenue to the several States and be an ample requirement from the companies.

The fee should be uniform, and apply alike to domestic and foreign companies.

Under existing laws the basis of domestic premium receipts is generally recognized, but the rates vary materially, resulting in manifest discrimination and injustice, and provoking retaliation.

The revenue thus paid by way of license fee should be in lieu of all charges for supervision and all taxes except those locally levied on real estate.

Your Committee recommends the adoption by this Conference of a resolution in conformity with the views expressed in this report.

LAWSON PURDY,

President Department of Taxes and Assessments, City of New York.

GEORGE H. NOYES,

General Counsel, Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance Co.,
Milwaukee, Wis.

W. M. DANIELS,

Professor of Political Economy,

Princeton University, Princeton, N. J.

Committee.

DISCUSSION OF INSURANCE COMMITTEE REPORT

MR. NILS P. HAUGEN (Wisconsin): The Wisconsin Tax Commissioners who are here as delegates are unable to affirmatively assent to this report, not because we are necessarily opposed to the principles announced in the report, but because at present the matter is pending before our Commission. The last session of the legislature specifically instructed us to make an investigation and to report to the next session, and we have not thus far formulated our views on the subject.

The situation in Wisconsin is not what it ought to be, and we are punishing our local company more than any other life insurance company. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, located in Milwaukee, is the only large company we have, and that company pays 3 per cent on its gross receipts into the state treasury of Wisconsin, excepting therefrom income from rents of real estate locally taxed and premiums collected from non-residents of the State. That came about somewhat by the invitation of the company itself. We had a law taxing all companies on a uniform basis, and that resulted in retaliatory measures in other States punishing the Northwestern Life Insurance Company in those States to such an extent that they asked to have this change made.

The companies of other States pay a license of $300 in this State; but we are assessing our own company excessively. There is no question about that, and some relief ought to be extended to it, and some more equal and just system should be applied to it and to the other companies doing business in this State. But we are unable to join in this report for the reason, as I have stated, that the matter is now being considered

by the Commission, with a view of making a report on the subject to the next session of our legislature.

MR. A. C. PLEYDELL (New Jersey): In order to see whether I correctly understand the situation, it is very interesting from the standpoint of the retaliatory legislation, — is it not a fact that the Northwestern asks you to exempt all foreign corporations, and practically assumes their taxes rather than to be exposed to retaliation by about forty States or as many States as there are foreign companies doing business here? That is to say, the Northwestern finds it cheaper to pay an excessive tax to your State, and thus buy an exemption of foreign corporations here, in order to be free from retaliatory excessive taxation in the many States in which it does business. MR. HAUGEN: That is true. The Northwestern, however, is not satisfied with the law as it stands.

MR. PLEYDELL: No, probably not, but it is very interesting as showing the difficulties of all corporations that are exposed to retaliatory legislation through doing an interstate business.

JUDGE OSCAR LESER (Maryland): It might be interesting to say that the same thing was done with reference to the surety companies of Maryland. We have in our city probably the leading surety companies in the country, and their business extended through all the States, and in order to avoid the retaliatory taxation of these States, they voluntarily assumed to pay to the State a tax equal to that which the State had been collecting on these foreign insurance companies. That act was passed, I think, four or six years ago.

CHAIRMAN BLISS: Are there any further remarks? A motion for the adoption of the report is in order.

MR. GEORGE POTTLE (Maine): I move the adoption of the report.

The motion was duly seconded.

MR. J. E. CUSHMAN (Vermont): As a delegate from Vermont, I cannot agree to the adoption of that report.

MR. PLEYDELL: Suppose we use the word "accept." That is practically what we mean, that we accept the report for publication. That does not carry with it a thorough indorsement of everything in it, but only of the general conclusions. The Conference is not bound, under the constitution,

by anything said or done here, except as expressed by formal resolutions, and the acceptance of a report this way means merely that in a general way the Conference receives it for publication as it would receive addresses that were presented before it. That would be my understanding; isn't that yours, Mr. Purdy?

MR. LAWSON PURDY (New York): Exactly. Use the word "receive," if you please, instead of "accept."

MR. GEORGE POTTLE (Maine): I will amend my motion that the report be accepted as part of the proceedings of the Conference. (The amendment was duly seconded.)

MR. WILLIAM H. CORBIN (Connecticut): What Mr. Pleydell has said, I think, is very vital. In Connecticut we have a number of life insurance companies, and this report will be received with very great favor by them. It will not be received with very great favor by the Connecticut legislature. Now, if those insurance companies are going to consider this report as being the absolute, unbiased, unanimous sentiment of this entire Conference, they are going to print it and spread it abroad. If Mr. Cox is here, I would like to know what the insurance companies will do with the report. Will they simply take the resolutions passed by the Conference as being the expression of opinion, or will they spread abroad the suggestion of a tax of 1 per cent of the premiums collected in the State as being the unanimous agreement of this Conference?

MR. PURDY: I do not think there can be any doubt about the way in which this report will appear in the proceedings, should it be received by the Conference. It will carry just so much weight as the signatures of the Committee, together with the argument which they make, may entitle that report to receive, and it cannot commit this Conference in the slightest degree. Resolutions have been submitted to the Committee on Resolutions, and if they are adopted, they will carry such weight as they may contain.

CHAIRMAN BLISS: If there is no objection, the question will be put "Shall the report of the Committee be accepted?" The acceptance of this report, the Chair understands, carries. with it, subject to the approval of the Conference, the printing of the report in the Proceedings. If it is the intention to

add to whatever argument there may be in these reports the weight of the Conference, it is necessary that a resolution to that effect be passed. It appears to the Chair that a motion to accept the report is entirely adequate for the purposes of this meeting.

[The motion was then put as above, and carried without dissent. A resolution adopted, relating to this report, is printed, page 26.]